[Albion] Women’s Football

[Commander]

This is still going then? I assumed my insightful first post would be followed by a few people agreeing with supporting statements, a few hundred thumbs up and then we could all move on to something else.

 

[Pretty Plnk Fairy]

Put Tysen Fury in a ring with Katy Taylor and who’s going to win? All day long Tyson. So take that you wokeys

Regards

DF

 

[Brovion]

So I went along to the Albion Women’s game for the first time last night. I was expecting to come away saying saying ‘fair play, the standard really has come on, I was surprised by how good the football was’.

I didn’t. I thought it was awful. I’m sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I thought the standard was dreadful, the atmosphere absolutely crap, and the whole thing a total waste of everybody’s time.*

I’ve said it before, but why on Earth do women play on a full size pitch with full sized goals? It makes no sense at all. An average Premier League keeper must be at least 6”5. The average women’s keeper must be almost a foot shorter. How is that fair? The old thing about women goalkeepers being rubbish is harsh, because they are playing in goals that are far too big for them. It’s the same with the pitches, they can’t play the same passes the men can and they can’t shoot from distance because they can’t hit the ball hard enough. People say ‘it’s a different’ game and it is, but why should it have to be?

And before anybody cries sexism / misogyny etc, women tee off from different tees in golf, play less sets in tennis etc. Football should be adapted for women to make it more like football, rather than the watered down, weird version of the sport I saw last night.


I’ll be sticking to Haywards Heath Town or Lewes for my non-Albion football fix from now on, but I can’t be the only person who thinks the women’s game has it all wrong?




*except mine, as I got to meet Guy Butters.

I'm a big fan of women's football, I've seen games (my first was at the Goldstone when England played Iceland) and I enjoyed the womens' Euros WAY more than I enjoyed the mens. I love the way the standard has improved and that it's now considered a mainstream sport with the England team selling out Wembley rather than playing in front of a few hundred at a crumbling provincial stadium.

I think a lot of the abuse you've got on this thread is totally unwarranted. People have just read 'man who wasn't impressed with a women's game' and have instantly assumed that you must be a complete misogynist who thinks the only role women should have in football is to make the teas, cut up the oranges and clean the changing rooms. I know that's not your view.

So I'm going to say that you do make a valid point about tennis and golf - but I actually don't think it applies to football. The goal sizes and pitch dimensions were set in the 19th century when men were physically much smaller than they are today - about the same size women are now! Goalkeepers for example never used to be 6' 5". The Brighton goalie when I first started watching in 1966 was Brian Powney, and he was only 5' 9".

So if anything you're looking at it the wrong way round - men should be playing on bigger pitches with bigger goals!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

People have instantly assumed that you must be a complete misogynist who thinks the only role women should have in football is to make the teas, cut up the oranges and clean the changing rooms. I know that's not your view.

Absolutely not.

There is a place for WAGS too.

And CHEERLEADERS.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I went to Wales women v Germany at the Liberty stadium a few months ago, it was fantastic. I'd go again given the chance.

Laura Freigang

 

[CroydonSeagull]

I went along for the first time in a couple of seasons, I do watch on TV though from time to time.

Hear what you’re saying @Commander but I actually disagree, I think the standard of our ladies has come on, actually significantly from two years ago, when I thought it was very poor (and consequently I hadn’t returned).

?Zigoti I thought was good, as was our captain and Terland. Robinson was quiet but then she was up against an absolute giant who won the physical battle every time.
Goalie wise, Megan Walsh always seemed steady, but our current goalie is not very good, and may save shots from range, but for me she is a weakness compared to the rest of the team.

Mikey Harris is trying to get them to play football, but like the men’s team at the moment it’s the final third, poor decision making and too slow.

Atmosphere wise, yes, it’s poor, but it’s a different clientele IMO, lots of children and their parents. Not wrong just different. Bit like Brentford away….
Our team desperately need their own stadium, but I certainly wouldn’t make it bigger than a 10k capacity, and would let the U21s and others share it.

I don’t agree with changing pitch dimensions

This is largely my take on the current state of Albion's Women's football. Although I think our current keeper had been playing well in some previous matches. (I still think Walsh was probably better overall and had more to give), Zigiotti and Terland are current stand outs as you say. A 10K seater u21/womens stadium would be a very welcome addition.
My opinion is that the pitch dimension, goal dimension argument is null and void for me, keep it the same. levels of fitness and skill have improved no end in the WSL/Championship and will contiue to do so at the clubs investing time and money.

 

[Hamilton]

I think @Commander makes a good point about pitch sizes and goal sizes but I doubt that the former would make it affordable for many teams if they are going to provide the same facilities for their men's teams as their women's.

I went along to watch Lewes Women play Crystal Palace yesterday (2,600 in attendance) and enjoyed the game - even if the wrong team won. I actually thought Sophie Whitehouse in the Lewes goal had a great game.

The pace of the game is different - it has to be due to the respective speeds of the players - but I've got used to it and enjoy what I watch.

I'm also aware that we're yet to see the best from the women's game. As it develops it will get better and better. At the present a few clubs have bought all the talent - it's like the 'top 6' of the Premier League but in sharper focus because the talent has not yet come through.

The more we can invest in and encourage girl's football, the more we'll see stronger women's teams emerge.

And personally, I'd love to see the FA step in to stop the women's game going the same way as the men's. I'd love them to be brave enough to introduce some sort of transfer capping so that teams further down the pyramid get a chance to sign talent before it is gobbled up by Man City and Chelsea. It seems extraordinarily unfair that Lewes, Doncaster, Durham, and London City have been campaigning for women's football for years and in a matter of minutes, Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City etc step in and basically buy the game.

 

[Commander]

I think a lot of the abuse you've got on this thread is totally unwarranted. People have just read 'man who wasn't impressed with a women's game' and have instantly assumed that you must be a complete misogynist who thinks the only role women should have in football is to make the teas, cut up the oranges and clean the changing rooms. I know that's not your view.

It isn't.

There are kits that need to be ironed too.



I am ON FIRE TODAY

On a serious note though. I was thinking this morning about the goal / pitch size thing. I was wondering whether what will happen is that over time as the quality improves, goalkeepers will end up having to be 6 foot plus, and as the game gets more physical, strength and physicality will become more and more important, meaning you will need to be a 6 foot beast of a unit to make it as a professional in the women's game. That would be a real shame, because it would exclude 99% of girls who are technically good enough to make it as a pro. Where as if they took on board my suggestions and changed the sizes, this would be less likely to become an issue. I'm probably wrong, but it popped into my head on my drive to work this morning, so I thought I would share my concern.

 

[dazzer6666]

It isn't.

There are kits that need to be ironed too.



I am ON FIRE TODAY

On a serious note though. I was thinking this morning about the goal / pitch size thing. I was wondering whether what will happen is that over time as the quality improves, goalkeepers will end up having to be 6 foot plus, and as the game gets more physical, strength and physicality will become more and more important, meaning you will need to be a 6 foot beast of a unit to make it as a professional in the women's game. That would be a real shame, because it would exclude 99% of girls who are technically good enough to make it as a pro. Where as if they took on board my suggestions and changed the sizes, this would be less likely to become an issue. I'm probably wrong, but it popped into my head on my drive to work this morning, so I thought I would share my concern.

Almost certainly I would think. This happens in male football……..kids risk being binned off and dropped by academies if they don’t look like having the physical attributes longer term

 

[Commander]

Almost certainly I would think. This happens in male football……..kids risk being binned off and dropped by academies if they don’t look like having the physical attributes longer term

I do think that is changing in the men’s game though. It’s historically been the case here, but nowhere near as much in places like Brazil / Spain / Portugal etc. it would be a shame for the women’s game to to make all the same mistakes the men’s game has.

 

[Milano]

I have no opinion on womens football as a sport as I don't watch it. This is due to the few times I have watched it I've found it pointless. To those who like it and go then fair enough and you should have an opinion that is listened to.

The only gripe I would ever have with pro womens football is if the £ required to operate the BHA womens team was at the detriment of the BHA mens team. Someone posted on another thread that Mitoma could be sold to pay for most of the womens stadium. I don't know if they were fishing. If that were to happen then I definitely would have an opinion and it wouldn't be positive.

 

[StonehamPark]

Is this true? As in, true for everyone?

In the UK any kid, of either sex, of almost 'any' ability level, can find a local team at their age group desperate for new players. They'll be welcomed in, and their participation will cost their parents a fiver a game in subs.

In the US, middle-class kids are invited to 'try out' for a soccer team, and IF they are selected, their parents need to find upwards of $1,000 per season in fees. Very much not open to all.

It’s definitely not true for everyone this side of the pond. There’s always going to be circumstances which will prevent children being able to get into sports.

I’m certain your point is definitely valid in some towns and cities, but it’s certainly not the norm or standard practice, especially not in Canada.

Talking first hand from a Canadian-specific experience (and comparing to my youth/growing up in Brighton), schools and provincial gyms/community centres are so geared up to provide sporting activities to children either at the school or at community centres/fields. Access to sports here is a world apart from the uk, in my opinion. Every field (including school playing fields) are open to the public outside of school hours, and people are encouraged to use them for sports and activity. Artificial turf fields, tennis courts etc are almost all open to the public 24/7 - whereas in the uk, these have to be pre-booked and paid for. The provinces and municipalities here offer ultra-cheap access to sports and teams for school children, whether it be athletics, soccer, hockey, basketball, swimming, gymnastics etc. all up to about 16 years old-ish, and that’s just outside of school.

I’d like to keep waffling on with more examples, but my main point here is Canada is so so more geared to outdoor sports and activities at all levels with such easier access to it than the UK, imo.
I believe the US is relatively similar in regards to plentiful access to sports through school, but I can’t draw direct comparisons.

To add some credentials is it’s pretty relevant to my point/opinion, I’m a level 2 FA Coach, and coached school children in B&H, the US & Canada. I’ve put (free) football tournaments together in the UK and have generally been pretty close and up to date with community sports and coaching.

 

[Is it PotG?]

This 'sell-out' (I don't think so) CL semi is pretty good, Chelsea having relinquished their away win advantage.
Barca playing nicely.

 

[tedebear]

This 'sell-out' (I don't think so) CL semi is pretty good, Chelsea having relinquished their away win advantage.
Barca playing nicely.

Did you post that before or after the second yellow? The dive for the second yellow, I'm not sure falls under the category of "playing nicely"

 

[Is it PotG?]

Might watch the denouement today, I enjoyed Hayes on commentaries and feel it would be nice for her to leave on a high.
That combined with a loathing of a Citeh men's/women's double.

 

[dazzer6666]

Great article

Reading is not unique. The whole women's football community should pay attention.

The news reported by Tom Garry that Reading have notified the FA that they cannot take up their licence to play in the Barclays Women's Championship next season and will likely drop to the fifth tier has drawn me out of my break from social media. This is devastating for the players, the staff and t

www.linkedin.com

 

[hart's shirt]

Great article

Reading is not unique. The whole women's football community should pay attention.

The news reported by Tom Garry that Reading have notified the FA that they cannot take up their licence to play in the Barclays Women's Championship next season and will likely drop to the fifth tier has drawn me out of my break from social media. This is devastating for the players, the staff and t

www.linkedin.com

"Many will misidentify the news as an unintended and unfortunate consequence of Reading’s ownership crisis and it’s true that the current ownership and their poor communication and consideration shown to the women’s team have over-complicated, delayed and potentially scuppered a survival plan for Reading to continue in Tier 2.

But the challenges Reading are facing are not unique to them. This news should be a wake-up call to an industry that will likely underestimate its significance for the women’s game as a whole – or simply not even register it.

And I’m sorry, but we all hold responsibility.

Whether we are journalists, fans, sponsors, players, club owners, coaches, staff, the FA, broadcasters, NewCo officials, we have, in our collective haste, made demands for progress and implemented decisions that have made it close to impossible for women’s teams to survive and thrive without a men’s club stumping up significant cash - whether they want to or not. That dependency creates huge fragilities that may not come to bear now but could have devastating consequences later.

The clubs that have chosen or been required to take the path of sustained and continued revenue growth, cannot keep up with our collective demands – whether for undersoil heating or new salary or transfer records - because revenue growth is intentional, data-based, iterative and needs time.

The Karen Carney review called for “the game… to grow in its own right to reach its true potential and stand on its own two feet”.
But we are too impatient for that.

We seemingly would like that to happen – at some point – but only once we have become entirely dependent on men’s football for this next phase of “growth”.

The consequences of a strategy that forces the hand of men’s clubs, is that we are creating an entire women’s football ecosystem that is more dependent than ever on men’s football. And when a crisis in ownership happens, such as is the case at Reading, the women’s team will always be collateral damage.

But this is not just the responsibility of Reading’s ownership. This is the collective responsibility of all of us who demand women’s football to run before we can buy our own shoes."

.............................

Disappointing, but hardly surprising. Some of us have been talking about this particular elephant in the room for years on here.

2 things have been needed from the start:
1. Financial sustainability away from "a men's club stumping up significant cash - whether they want to or not".
2. The ability to shut one's ears to the media narrative of stratospheric growth achieved regardless of general week-in, week-out domestic turnstile attendances. One-off outlier games would dramatically increase average attendances giving a false picture picked up by acolyte writers on the likes of BBC Sport to reinforce a clickbait half-truth headline.

Alex Scott's The Future of Women's Football documentary failed to address it in any detail despite being an hour long. And anything remotely contentious or that might go against the narrative could be simply ascribed to a desire to maintain the status quo or just latent misogyny. Not quite a conspiracy of silence, but perhaps an inconvenient nettle that no-one was prepared to grasp because of how it might look.

So the decision by Reading to opt out of the 2nd tier of women's football (for which there is external financial sponsorship) at least shows a truer picture of the state of play. It should be "a wake up call" even if those sleeping don't want to listen. As Murphy says, the big issue isn't about Reading's particular owner here.

Of course, the irony is that it could be argued that Maggie Murphy herself, as former CEO of Lewes that promoted equal pay across the men's and women's teams, has directly contributed to the "demand women’s football to run before we can buy our own shoes." Equality yes, but at what cost?

The truth of where the women's game actually is has always been more important than what some might want it to eventually be.

 

[dazzer6666]

"Many will misidentify the news as an unintended and unfortunate consequence of Reading’s ownership crisis and it’s true that the current ownership and their poor communication and consideration shown to the women’s team have over-complicated, delayed and potentially scuppered a survival plan for Reading to continue in Tier 2.

But the challenges Reading are facing are not unique to them. This news should be a wake-up call to an industry that will likely underestimate its significance for the women’s game as a whole – or simply not even register it.

And I’m sorry, but we all hold responsibility.

Whether we are journalists, fans, sponsors, players, club owners, coaches, staff, the FA, broadcasters, NewCo officials, we have, in our collective haste, made demands for progress and implemented decisions that have made it close to impossible for women’s teams to survive and thrive without a men’s club stumping up significant cash - whether they want to or not. That dependency creates huge fragilities that may not come to bear now but could have devastating consequences later.

The clubs that have chosen or been required to take the path of sustained and continued revenue growth, cannot keep up with our collective demands – whether for undersoil heating or new salary or transfer records - because revenue growth is intentional, data-based, iterative and needs time.

The Karen Carney review called for “the game… to grow in its own right to reach its true potential and stand on its own two feet”.
But we are too impatient for that.

We seemingly would like that to happen – at some point – but only once we have become entirely dependent on men’s football for this next phase of “growth”.

The consequences of a strategy that forces the hand of men’s clubs, is that we are creating an entire women’s football ecosystem that is more dependent than ever on men’s football. And when a crisis in ownership happens, such as is the case at Reading, the women’s team will always be collateral damage.

But this is not just the responsibility of Reading’s ownership. This is the collective responsibility of all of us who demand women’s football to run before we can buy our own shoes."

.............................

Disappointing, but hardly surprising. Some of us have been talking about this particular elephant in the room for years on here.

2 things have been needed from the start:
1. Financial sustainability away from "a men's club stumping up significant cash - whether they want to or not".
2. The ability to shut one's ears to the media narrative of stratospheric growth achieved regardless of general week-in, week-out domestic turnstile attendances. One-off outlier games would dramatically increase general attendances giving a false picture picked up by acolyte writers on the likes of BBC Sport to reinforce a clickbait half-truth headline.

Alex Scott's The Future of Women's Football documentary failed to address it in any detail despite being an hour long. And anything remotely contentious or that might go against the narrative could be simply ascribed to a desire to maintain the status quo or just latent misogyny. Not quite a conspiracy of silence, but perhaps an inconvenient nettle that no-one was prepared to grasp because of how it might look.

So if the decision by Reading to opt out of the 2nd tier of women's football (for which there is external financial sponsorship) at least shows a truer picture of the state of play. It should be "a wake up call" even if those sleeping don't want to listen. As Murphy says, the big issue isn't about Reading's particular owner here.

Of course, the irony is that it could be argued that Maggie Murphy herself, as former CEO of Lewes that promoted equal pay across the men's and women's teams, has directly contributed to the "demand women’s football to run before we can buy our own shoes." Equality yes, but at what cost?

The truth of where the women's game actually is has always been more important than what some might want it to eventually be.

Mostly agree but not about the Lewes equal pay thing. That was a bit of a PR stunt (pay was never equal anyway), and in any case it was ‘equalising’ Tier 2 women with a men’s budget from way down the ladder.

 

[hart's shirt]

Mostly agree but not about the Lewes equal pay thing. That was a bit of a PR stunt (pay was never equal anyway), and in any case it was ‘equalising’ Tier 2 women with a men’s budget from way down the ladder.

If it was a PR stunt, the angle presented that it was equal pay for men and women has probably contributed in some way, albeit small, to what's being discussed in the article. And I'm sure we'd both agree the women's game deserves better than PR stunts.

Regardless of this and the nuance, the big picture remains. Let's hope the message doesn't fall on deaf ears.

 

[BevBHA]

I love the way the standard has improved and that it's now considered a mainstream sport with the England team selling out Wembley rather than playing in front of a few hundred at a crumbling provincial stadium.

I’d challenge that they ‘sell out Wembley’. Lots of hand outs, free school tickets, deals and very cheap tickets… the term ‘sell out’ implies people buying them at full price until they are gone. Certainly not even close to the case. They’d probably get 10k fans if priced the same as the men’s, if they were lucky.